|
|
Raymond Andringa
{K:963} 5/30/2004
|
Paul ... the park is Kerry Park. It's a very small hole-in-the-wall park that everyone visits to shoot the Seattle skyline. I suggest getting there as early as you can in the evening 'cause parking is very limited.
|
|
|
|
Paul Lara
{K:88111} 5/29/2004
|
What park is this, Raymond?
I'm vacationing in Seattle in a few weeks! ;)
|
|
|
|
|
Raymond Andringa
{K:963} 11/27/2002
|
Each day I learn more and more...Thanks all.
|
|
|
|
|
ng nn
{K:129} 11/27/2002
|
No, Raymond, barrel-distortion is the propensity among (especially) wide-angle lenses to draw ex-centric, straight lines as curves, curving outwards. If you photograph a rectangle it will resemble a barrel, hence the name.
Some lenses will have what is called pincushion distortion, and here the lines will be curving inwards, giving the rectangle a cushion-look.
The phenomenon you are describing (increasing fuzzyness towards the edges) is due to the rays of light not focussing in the same plane. This increases with widening apertures and will probably go away if you stop down to f8 or f11. The closer to the optical axes the rays of light pass through the lens the less aberration, both chromatic and focus-wise.
|
|
|
|
|
Raymond Andringa
{K:963} 11/27/2002
|
Mr. Holman - Due to the fact that I was further away from Seattle than I'd like to have been, my focal length was 93mm. I did use a teleconverter (unknown brand, specs. etc.) on some shots but I didn't like the blurry effect on everything near the outer edge of the field (is that barrel distortion?).
|
|
|
|
|
Donald Holman
{K:884} 11/26/2002
|
Mr. Ray, sir! You've been a busy boy. Oh you digital photographers. :)
I'd comment on the photo, but I know close to jack about landscapes myself, so. Wondering what focal length this is could be (I forget the specs on the C3000Z)? Thinking it must be pretty low considering the DOF you got at f2.8
|
|
|
|
|
Deb Mayes
{K:19605} 11/26/2002
|
Ah, well - I'm impressed you were experimenting that way, how else would any of us learn? Reading doesn't entirely get things through my head; somehow I have to do them, too. (Apparently I am doomed to make every mistake possible, but that's me.)
I like both of these; my objection to the first really was minor. I love the way the second one glows though - what a difference a few minutes make. :) (And I hear you about the Hasselblad.)
|
|
|
|
|
Raymond Andringa
{K:963} 11/26/2002
|
Deb, Yes I did shoot more as the sun set further; unfortunately the wind picked up a bit and as the shutter speeds decreased, the slightest camera vibration (note to self: invest in more sturdy tri-pod) translated into a blurry image and those were deleted.
One other factor was that I was playing around with different camera settings practicing to see what will work best in the end. The picture I posted was shot at 1/100 sec with an aperture of f2.8 and an ISO of 100. This other image is composed different (Columbia Tower isn?t being blocked by the Space Needle) and it was shot at 1/5 sec., an aperture of f11 and an ISO of 200. (Experimenting with DOF)
I guess it might be easier to have more than one camera set up ready to shoot at various settings in the short light of a setting sun instead of having to make setting adjustments on one camera, but I?m still new to the world of photography and am not ready to take out a second mortgage to buy that Hasselblad I?ve been eyeing...baby steps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deb Mayes
{K:19605} 11/26/2002
|
Very nice composition, but the shadows seem a little harsh (minor nit). Did you happen to take more as the sun went down farther? I especially like the glow on Mount Rainier in the background -
|
|
0 
